We consider the problem of auditing \emph{black-box} large language models (LLMs) to ensure they behave reliably when deployed in production settings, particularly in high-stakes domains such as legal, medical, and regulatory compliance. Existing approaches for LLM auditing often focus on isolated aspects of model behavior, such as detecting specific biases or evaluating fairness. We are interested in a more general question—can we understand how the outputs of black-box LLMs depend on \emph{each input token}? There is a critical need to have such tools in real-world applications that rely on inaccessible API endpoints to language models. However, this is a highly non-trivial problem, as LLMs are stochastic functions (i.e. two outputs will be different by chance), while computing prompt-level gradients to approximate input sensitivity is infeasible. To address this, we propose Distribution-Based Sensitivity Analysis (DBSA), a lightweight model-agnostic procedure to evaluate the sensitivity of the output of a language model for each input token, without making any distributional assumptions about the LLM. DBSA is developed as a \emph{practical tool} for practitioners, enabling quick, plug-and-play visual exploration of LLMs reliance on specific input tokens. Through illustrative examples, we demonstrate how DBSA can enable users to inspect LLM inputs and find sensitivities that may be overlooked by existing LLM interpretability methods.

Consider the problem of testing whether the outputs of a large language model (LLM) system change under an arbitrary intervention, such as an input perturbation or changing the model variant. We cannot simply compare two LLM outputs since they might differ due to the stochastic nature of the system, nor can we compare the entire output distribution due to computational intractability. While existing methods for analyzing text-based outputs exist, they focus on fundamentally different problems, such as measuring bias or fairness. To this end, we introduce distribution-based perturbation analysis, a framework that reformulates LLM perturbation analysis as a frequentist hypothesis testing problem. We construct empirical null and alternative output distributions within a low-dimensional semantic similarity space via Monte Carlo sampling, enabling tractable inference without restrictive distributional assumptions. The framework is (i) model-agnostic, (ii) supports the evaluation of arbitrary input perturbations on any black-box LLM, (iii) yields interpretable p-values; (iv) supports multiple perturbations via controlled error rates; and (v) provides scalar effect sizes. We demonstrate the usefulness of the framework across multiple case studies, showing how we can quantify response changes, measure true/false positive rates, and evaluate alignment with reference models. Above all, we see this as a reliable frequentist hypothesis testing framework for LLM auditing.

Real-world machine learning systems often encounter model performance degradation due to distributional shifts in the underlying data generating process (DGP). Existing approaches to addressing shifts, such as concept drift adaptation, are limited by their *reason-agnostic* nature. By choosing from a pre-defined set of actions, such methods implicitly assume that the causes of model degradation are irrelevant to what actions should be taken, limiting their ability to select appropriate adaptations. In this paper, we propose an alternative paradigm to overcome these limitations, called *self-healing machine learning* (SHML). Contrary to previous approaches, SHML autonomously diagnoses the reason for degradation and proposes diagnosis-based corrective actions. We formalize SHML as an optimization problem over a space of adaptation actions to minimize the expected risk under the shifted DGP. We introduce a theoretical framework for self-healing systems and build an agentic self-healing solution *$\mathcal{H}$-LLM* which uses large language models to perform self-diagnosis by reasoning about the structure underlying the DGP, and self-adaptation by proposing and evaluating corrective actions. Empirically, we analyze different components of *$\mathcal{H}$-LLM* to understand *why* and *when* it works, demonstrating the potential of self-healing ML.

The predominant *de facto* paradigm of testing ML models relies on either using only held-out data to compute aggregate evaluation metrics or by assessing the performance on different subgroups. However, such *data-only testing* methods operate under the restrictive assumption that the available empirical data is the sole input for testing ML models, disregarding valuable contextual information that could guide model testing. In this paper, we challenge the go-to approach of *data-only testing* and introduce *Context-Aware Testing* (CAT) which uses context as an inductive bias to guide the search for meaningful model failures. We instantiate the first CAT system, *SMART Testing*, which employs large language models to hypothesize relevant and likely failures, which are evaluated on data using a *self-falsification mechanism*. Through empirical evaluations in diverse settings, we show that SMART automatically identifies more relevant and impactful failures than alternatives, demonstrating the potential of CAT as a testing paradigm.